ORDER :- The revision petitioner (the fifth defendant) and her son (the sixth defendant) were impleaded as legal respresentatives of the second defendant in the suit. They were served by 'substituted service' and the suit was decreed on 18-3-1966 ex parte against them. The fifth defendant moved the first Court and the appellate court unsuccessfully to set aside the ex parte decree.

2. The enquiry under R. 13 of O. 9 of the C. P. C. touches the following two questions; (1) Whether the summons was duly served and (2) Whether the defendent was prevented by sufficient cause at the " hearing" . The language in R. 13 of O. 9 of the C. P. C. gave rise to a serious conflict and divergence of judicial opinion ever since 1926. This Court, however, in a way reconciled the divergence in a Full Bench judgment in Shanmukhi v. Venkatarami Reddy, 1956 Andh LT 194 : (AIR 1957 Andh Pra 1). The view of Reilly, J. in Gyanammal v. Abdul Hussain, ILR 55 Mad 223 : (AIR 1931 Mad 813) as to " the cardinal principle of our administration of civil justice that no decree shall be made against a party behind his back"was reconciled holding the Court is to be 'satisfied' before a decree is set aside wh